Author Topic: Cyclone-class missile cruiser (Read 24162 times)

Shrike · **Reply #60 on:** January 09, 2003, 07:32:38 pm

The reason they're tall/small is because they're designed to have a very wide arc of fire, something that is much more difficult with a squat turret. They have 25' depression, whereas the other turrets only have 10'.

mikhael · **Reply #61 on:** January 09, 2003, 07:36:54 pm

Do you mean they have a wider angle of fire (and thus a greater negative deflection from true)?

That makes sense for the height (it is, after all, why CIWS turrets the world round are tall). That does not address, however, why they look completely different in manufacture than the others (and the ship as a whole).

Shrike · **Reply #62 on:** January 09, 2003, 07:43:12 pm

Because I wanted them different. Different subcontractor, perhaps. And it's not like the ship completely lacks other round objects either.

Darkage · **Reply #63 on:** January 09, 2003, 07:45:02 pm

Turret *****ing!:D

*runs*

mikhael · **Reply #64 on:** January 09, 2003, 07:48:02 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Shrike
Because I wanted them different. Different subcontractor, perhaps. And it's not like the ship completely lacks other round objects either.

Different is one thing. Completely out of place is another.

Ah well. Its your model. I'll shut up now.

Nico · **Reply #65 on:** January 10, 2003, 02:42:52 am

actually, those turrets would look cool on a warammer40K ship

( tho nowadays they tend to make stuff look realistic rather than fancy. Dunno if I like that trend actually, I don't like 40K coz it's realistic, but because it's fancy

)

Setekh · **Reply #66 on:** January 10, 2003, 03:06:23 am

Quote

Originally posted by mikhael
Different is one thing. Completely out of place is another.

Ah well. Its your model. I'll shut up now.

You know, sometimes I want to say what you say to Shrike, but I don't have the knowledge to sustain that kind of argument.

Darkage summarised it beautifully, though.

Shrike · **Reply #67 on:** January 10, 2003, 04:32:51 am

Just to make Mikheal happy, I did a angular version of my PD mount as a test. At first I went down a wrong road.....

But I turfed that one pretty quickly, and based a new one more solidly on my beam turrets.

Not too bad, but it got a little bit too chunky for my tastes. I wanted something that looked light and easy to spin. So I might redo this one or just stay with the old turrets. The good thing is that the poly count is roughly halved with the angular design, a saving of about 20,000 across the entire model.

Setekh · **Reply #68 on:** January 10, 2003, 04:35:14 am

I'm not going to say anything, after seeing Styxx's needle-looking guns, anything else kinda pales in comparison.

Styxx · **Reply #69 on:** January 10, 2003, 05:27:04 am

Quote

Originally posted by Setekh
I'm not going to say anything, after seeing Styxx's needle-looking guns, anything else kinda pales in comparison.

THOSE ARE NOT GUNS!!!

* ahem *

Styxx · **Reply #70 on:** January 10, 2003, 05:27:32 am

BTW, Shrike, I like the new ones. I also think they "fit" a lot better with the model, dunno.

mikhael · **Reply #71 on:** January 10, 2003, 05:51:16 am

The new PD turrets look good. Both versions you did look good actually.

Shrike · **Reply #72 on:** January 10, 2003, 05:53:34 am

Actually, the controversy over those damn turrets led me to post a little rant over at Scifi-Meshes.com on the topic of constructive criticism.

[q]

Quote

Originally posted by Tolerate
I have noticed that generally, and i emphersise generally, that unless people post mainly trek images here they don't get many replies.

I haven't been here long, but I have to agree. Unless they are extremely good models, original stuff doesn't seem to get as many replies as the Trek stuff, and it seems a lot more of those replies tend to be 'that's cool' or variations as opposed to actual constructive criticism. That's possibly because you have nothing specifically to compare original work to as opposed to 'another NX', but still..... you don't need a studio model to exist to comment on style or features or detail.

Give me criticism dammit! I may not follow it - it's my model after all - but if you provide an argument as to why something is bad and why I should change it I will certainly read and consider what you posted.[/q]

You can read the full thread here

Bishop Gantry · **Reply #73 on:** January 10, 2003, 11:31:01 am

Perhaps we could get comparison pictures with the turrets on the ship? old turret vs new turrets...

Setekh · **Reply #74 on:** January 10, 2003, 10:22:00 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Styxx

THOSE ARE NOT GUNS!!!

* ahem *

Uh-oh... well, they are now.

(See your thread.)

Anaz · **Reply #75 on:** January 10, 2003, 11:03:54 pm

they have been Steakified™

Shrike · **Reply #76 on:** January 11, 2003, 05:05:44 am

More updates on the prow detailing.

Ryx · **Reply #77 on:** January 11, 2003, 05:19:52 am

What's that cylindrical thingy?
At first glance, I thought it was a docking ring (thing, really), but now I don't know.

Shrike · **Reply #78 on:** January 11, 2003, 05:28:38 am

Sensor..... thingiemajig.

Setekh · **Reply #79 on:** January 11, 2003, 05:35:22 am

That view is nice. What does that front turret fire?

News:

Author Topic: Cyclone-class missile cruiser (Read 24162 times)

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser

Cyclone-class missile cruiser